Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1887-08-18
NO.. 33

were the powers that ruled Wood
County, and were engaged in a
scheme to wrong the county, they
would hardly have suffered the
very meeting of the Board used to
purchase the bridge in furtherauce
of the scheme" to throw it back
in their faces on the ground that
they, (the cities, were ito take
and keep up the bridge" Nor
would those wicked cities, under
the circumstances stated, have al
lowed the Board to refuse to re-
pair" the bridge in 1874. Mr..
Lathrop's facts are a little
tangled" Either these cities did
not rule" or Mr. Lathrop is mis-
informed as to what was done. 1t
is true that at the meeting which
purchased the bridge a resolution
was passed donating it to Contra
LA and Grand Rapids, who declined
to receive it. Whether this action
by the County Board was intended
to be serious or otherwise, it is not
at all unlikely that the Supervisors
would have been willing that these
places should maintain the bridge,
if they were so inclined. But the
County Board had no power to
donate it, and Grand Rapids and
Centralia had none to receive it.
Nor did the Supervisors "refuse"
to repair the bridge in 1874.
They disagreed as to what should
be done, and thereby failed to do
anything. Some Supervisors
claimed that the county was not
legally bound to maintain the
bridge, and that these localities
were, while a majority admitted
the county's liability and duty,
but disagreed as to the extent and
nature of repairs needed and as to
the amount necessary to be ex-
pended. The bridge was mean
while out of repair, and legal pro-
ceedings were commenced to COM
pei the County Board to act in the
matter, and incidentally to settle
any doubts that might exist as to
who was liable, under the law, to
maintain the bridge. The ques-
ton was decided by the Supreme
Court, and never thereafter, until
within a very recent time, has any
considerable dissatisfaction been
made known to the people of this
part Of the county. The claim
that Grand Rapids and Centralia,
either or both, exercised an undue
or unfair influence in shaping the
action of the County Board, at any
time, is utterly false, unsupported
by any credible evidence, and is as
unjust to the people of the towns
as to the two localities named.
Those at all familiar with the his
tory of Wood County affairs from
1865 until long after 1873, do not
need to be told that in all matters
involving taxation by county
authority Grand Rapids had more
reason to complain of unjust dis
elimination than any other town
or city of the county. This is not
complained of now, but is men
toned as one of many facts show
ing that this locality has never had
power to control the action of the
County Board.
Triumphantly continuing in his
favorite strain, Mr.. Lathrop says:
Some time ago, | think about
the time of the Inauguration of.
this 6rzkge scheme, when the control
Ct lie county was UeSted with the
beoble ofdEat locality, Grand Rap
ids and Centralia, } the county was
bonded for SI35,ooo TO SI5o,ooo to
bring two railroads through the
southern portion Of the county to
these tz00 cities. The 0StemSi6le OBJ
ject was to develope the county;
the real object was to- beneft CEN
h-alla and Ga1a1zd Rabtds at lie e1-
bense 0fhbe county. The Green Bay
road gave its bonds to the County
IO1 InG dlC dQVdlCCQ. uG DOuQS
proved to be. almost worthless to
the county, notwithstanding they
proved valuable to SOME PRIVATE
INDIVIDUALS. Why was not sys-
tenn of County roads thought of
at this time? Can any of the
gentlemen whose names are ap-
pended to the Enterprise article
mention 0ue Place where money
has been expended by the County
for local purposes that has not
been to benefit aaat section of the
county?"
Sufficient has been said already,
it would seem, in answer to the
wholly groundless assertion, SO
persistently repeated, in effect that
the control of the county" was
for time vested" in Grand Rap
ids and Centralia. But there IS
less of truth, and more of innuen-
do in the above extract than is